From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nlpi157.prodigy.net (nlpi157.sbcis.sbc.com [207.115.36.171]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29E3B7CF0 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:19:42 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:19:15 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim In-Reply-To: <20100301120632.GB3852@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <20100218222923.GC31681@kryten> <20100219000730.GD31681@kryten> <20100219145523.GN30258@csn.ul.ie> <20100223015551.GG31681@kryten> <20100301120632.GB3852@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Anton Blanchard List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > Christoph, how feasible would it be to allow parallel reclaimers in > __zone_reclaim() that back off at a rate depending on the number of > reclaimers? Not too hard. Zone locking is there but there may be a lot of bouncing cachelines if you run it concurrently.